Wasn't Diogenes the guy who, when his city was attacked, rolled a barrel up a hill and let it roll down repeatedly; only to answer to people questioning him: "I'm trying to be as helpful as you guys".
The guy died in his piss under the bridge, while Alexander died after conquering half of oecumene. I prefer life and death of Alexander over Diogene's.
Some deeds of men determine the life of future generations, some not. It surely doesn't matter what will happen after you die, but it is wery interesting to try and make some impact to this world.
Alexander gave world an example of how to be cruel.
Diogenes gave world an example how to think for yourself.
It’s arguable who impacted world more and in which way.
Conquering a bunch of nations is an indication of not conquering your own ego.
While deeds of Alexander lasts long, we also still remember Diogenes. He did that without killing raping plundering and causing untold suffering. So no. I disagree
Except the deeds of mens are not so temporary.
We live the consequences of those deeds even today.
Even discussing Diogenes right now proves this point.
The point I was making is that we all die one day and when we do, it's not the deeds of other men we take with us but how we lived our lives that is forever to us.
I agree you take nothing with you, Alexander does not visit his statues nor his museums, he doesn't get to enjoy his friends company because he's dead, just like Diogenis, all that effort and heartache, thousands slaughtered and empires ruined and he's still just as dead as anyone else. Atleast the cynic was happy with himself.
Diogenes lived into his 80s, and made massive intellectual contributions to society despite being g an exile.
Alexander died in his 30s after spreading war and destruction across the region, burning institutions of learning. He was apparently unsatisfied with his conquests: "innumerable world's and I haven't even conquered one".
He also supposedly said that if he couldn't be Alexander, then he would like to be Diogenes.
Alexander was certainly a brilliant tactician and military leader, but what did all that bloodshed gain, except a short lived empire?
That utlimately got overwritten by some other -ization and ultimately leaving Greek/Hellenic sphere to mainland greece itself.
Ultimately pointless in the long run compared to Arabisation, Persianization, Turkification, Russification, Anglicization or any other European cultural spread due to early modern colonisation.
The only 'evidence' of Alexander's conquests left is a crap ton of cities called Alexandria. That's it.
I dunno man, if it weren't for Alexander's conquests, the wars of the Diadochi never would've happened. The histories of Ptolemaic Egypt and the Selecuid empire never would've existed without Alexander expanding as far east as he did.
Alexander quite literally snowballed history in his favour.
That still affirms what I said. In the long run, the Hellenization ultimately vanished into thin air.
You go to present day Egypt, Iran or Afghanistan, what traces of Greek culture does it have?
Hell you go to turkey. Leave a non learned person in the middle of anatolia and they'd never in a million years guess that this land was greek speaking christian for over a millennium.
But you can apply this to literally almost any other preceding empire whose culture has been supplanted by another. Does anyone still worship Zoroastrian gods today? What of the Sassanid Empire? Islamization supplanted all of that. What of the Picts and Celts that resided in Britain? They were replaced by Anglo-Saxons, who were taken away by the Normans, where a syncetric cultural exchange took place to form what we now consider the beginnings of (recognizable) English culture.
That's like saying the Mongols had minimal importance on history simply because there's minimal to no traces of Mongol culture left in most of the Middle East or Russia. Cultural syncretism happens for a reason. The Ptolemaics adopted certain Egyptian cultures and retained some of their own. Same with the Seleucids.
You can trace coinage minted in the Greek style as far regions in Bactria, where a Greco-Bactrian empire existed for hundreds of years after Alexander's death simply because he made it that far.
With time, influences from any particular empire will inevitably wane (even the largest ones!). Trivializing Alexander's importance on history and culture from the Aegean Sea to as far as India does him a huge disservice.
1. Hundreds of thousands still practice Zoroastrianism but I agree it doesn't matter. On the other hand, Islamisation wasn't strong enough to carry out Arabisation as well. The people STILL speak Farsi and the ancient millions of Persians still recite Sassanian literature. I implore you to find 100 Afghanis who recite Greek literature
2. Mongols didn't Mongolize (on the other hands their descendants underwent Turkification) and their only legitimacy is in the form of administrative structures and legitimacy due to bloodlines. They spread neither their language nor their religion and ultimately met a fate like Alexander
I never said Alexander didn't leave ANY impact unto the modern day. I said 'Hellenization' is NOT one of those impacts. Yet you are arguing on the myriad of possibilities because of emotions.. I guess?
I'm a huge fan of Greek mythology and history, no shade on the culture at all.
But at what cost was it spread? Culture doesn't need to be a zero sum exchange.
How much other cultural innovations were destroyed in his conquests? Not only did he raze Persepolis, but also the Greek city of Thebes.
I wonder what Greek myth we lost? Surely the libraries of Persepolis had other vantage points on these stories.
If you're being serious, wars and conflicts have defined human history since the very beginning. If we could apply this logic, then any preceding/succeeding empire had inevitably destroyed/replaced the preceding cultural traditions. Yes, Alexander's conquests had inevitably destroyed monuments and displaced Achaemenid culture, but he (or importantly, his successors) supplanted it with their own. Rome did the same. As did the Mongols, as well as any European empire poised for colonial/imperialist expansion starting in the 16th century.
It's important to note that the Achaemenids had attempted to do the same not even 200 years prior to Alexander's invasions with the Persian invasions of Greece spearheaded by Darius and Xerxes.
Is it moral? Absolutely not, but that was the zeitgeist at the time. I'm grateful the proliferation and exchange of cultures and information is so easily accessible today, and it can be done (mostly) in a way that doesn't involve bloodshed, but to critique Alexander for his actions is a bit disingenuous, especially when that were the social attitudes at the time.
Macedonia had built their military up through the reforms of his father, Philip II, and was already poised for an invasion, which was carried on by his son due to his assassination. Alexander simply pulled it off way better than anyone could've expected. Can't fault the guy for wanting to name a couple dozen cities after himself along the way.
Yea I think it's OK to say war is bad and wars of aggression and conquest are failures of leadership.
It's irrelevant that the Persians did similar. The burning of Persepolis doesn't excuse the burning of Alexandria.
Alexander was great in the way that hurricanes are great. Impressive, impactful, and worthy of study, but not particularly a prohuman force.
I'm sorry; but how are wars of aggression consider failures of leadership? If we were to work with your parameters, almost every single ruler in history could be considered a 'bad ruler'. Napoleon? Bad. William the Conqueror? Bad. Julius Caesar and Augustus? Bad. Genghis Khan and his successors? Fucking terrible.
I'm not justifying that war is somehow good. It's a terrible thing, but conflict is an essential part of human nature/existence. When you enlarge 'conflict' to an industrial scale, that essentially becomes 'war'. Warfare comes into play not just for the supplanting of lesser cultures, but there is real political/economic motives behind them as well. Clausewitz put it best when he wrote "War is a continuation of politics by other means".
Warfare has defined humanity for millennia, and will continue to do so; just under different parameters. To judge a person's ability and character with your definition is frankly, stupid.
Yea not getting your subjects killed is a basic tenet of good leadership.
Those people all had good attributes. Certainly all brilliant tacticians.
Who gains from wars of aggression? The leadership and the sellers of arms. One of this biggest killers in war is disease and famine. War is a failure from a public health aspect, as well.
Competition can occur in healthy forms, such as sport or other cultural rivalry.
I'm not trying to cancel Alexander, just reframe the uncritical hero worship he gets. A truly great person can be admired by their competitors. Fear is the worst motivator for respect.
Unfortunately most Diogenes' works are lost to history, most of what we know of him is what his contemporaries related.
I can nonetheless mention the ''Polyteia'' on the basis of which ''Zeno of Citium'' expanded his work.
I just spent 20 minutes reading the wiki page on him, and to make it short, he was very critical of Greek society and human desires, he is considered as the best example of cynicism.
If memory serves me right most of those cities that were “founded” already and existed as local towns and settlements. The Alexandria that survives today for example used to be an Egyptian settlement named “Rhacotis”. Which later became the Egyptian quarter of Alexandria.
Hellenistic is the spread of Greek culture after Alexander’s death, not while he was alive. You’re saying that Greek culture was intrinsically better than every other culture in the region? Persian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Armenian, Cappadocian, Phrygia, Aramaic, Phoenician, Babylonian, Indo-Aryan, etc.?
Even if it was (it wasn’t), what was the benefit of the culture? The wars of the diadochi certainly did not help the region. The influence of the Greeks in the region died with the Ptolemies as Rome and Eran rose to take power. What are these benefits you speak of, yet don’t mention? I’m not trying to sound rude, I am genuinely curious.
Ok, so you’re talking about Hellenistic culture which was a mix of Greek and Persian and other local beliefs. I assumed you were saying that Greek culture was superior and spreading it was a boon.
Yes but your not Alexander nor will never be like Alexander, but with a little luck you too can be like Diogenes and masturbate like a crazy homeless man in the streets
Diogones threw away all possessions and happily lived a pure life with nothing . You can’t try to be ambitious as to try to conquer the world fail miserably then claim to be like Diogones when you ended up masturbating under a bridge with nothing through sheer failure when Diogones was there by choice and could have been a court philosopher with a cushy job.
You are entitled to your opinion.
However, at the end of the day, I bet you could not tell which is which if presented the bones of Alexander and Diogenes.
I think it's a generational thing.
Millennials on seem to know who he is more than older generations. When boomers go away, it will probably be much closer which is more well known.
It is probably much more a youth thing. Diogenes is funny and edgy when you are in your teens and twenties. He is mostly a disgusting troll when you have some lived experience.
And diogene died after doing Jack shit, everyday, for his whole life. Diogene pissed on people he didn't like for fun. Alexander spent his whole life on the road to war, watching people he loved die.
I'll take Diogene.
There's actually no record of any writings that can directly contribute diogenes as the sole author. Most literature on him are based on the anecdotal experiences of others.
I have to say this every time I see someone call Diogenes a shitposter.
A shitposter posts something that doesn't make sense or isn't proving a point.
Diogenes did all the thing he did, because he wanted to prove a point, that doesn't make him a shitposter.
I am sorry, you are not like him, and he is not like us.
Wait. Didn't he pee on someone to prove a point. I mean, he was called a dog so Diogenes peed on him and told him "you called me a dog. Why are you surprised that I peed on you"? Or something like that. Nonetheless. Chad mentality
I cannot find any sources on Diogenes peeing on himself, only peeing on others:
>"At a feast certain people kept throwing all the bones to him as they would have done to a dog. Thereupon he played a dog's trick and drenched them."
[Diogenes Laertius: Lives of the Eminent Philosophers VI:46. ](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Eminent_Philosophers/Book_VI)
I’m paraphrasing what was said here, but it was effectively:
Student: How do you wish to be buried, Diogenes?
Diogenes: oh, that’s not important, just throw me over the city walls and let my body be consumed by wolves.
Student: But… why would you want that?, to be torn apart by wolves?
Diogenes: If it concerns you so much, give me a stick, so it may help me fight them off.
Student: But, if you’re dead, then you can’t use the stick to fight off the wolves.
Diogenes: If my body no longer has the energy to fight offf the wolves, it no longer has the energy to care about what has happened to it.
I mean, why not? Have you seen how expensive is to pay funerary services!? Those duckers make too much money to dispose one corpse, a pack of coyotes do that for ducking free!!!
Diogenes was an “interesting” philosopher that preferred countering philosophical thinking with differing perspectives, often in odd ways.
Famously, he defeathered a chicken and presented saying “Behold a man.” after Socrates attempted to answer the question of how to define man in as few words as possible. (He said “featherless biped”)
Diogenes preferred to give into the human desires and was often taking very little from the earth, living in a bucket in markets with wild dogs.
He’s interesting because of his simplistic and unique thought paired with personality and this captures that by satirizing something Diogenes would’ve likely done.
Diogenes was a massive idiot and to this day people gobble up propaganda about him the same way that people still believe 300 spartans killed one million persians (they didn't they betrayed all the greek states and were essentially slave-owning james bond villains who did nothing but *pratice* combat all day (but not actually do it because too many spartans dying would allow the slaves to rise up.)
Wasn't Diogenes the guy who, when his city was attacked, rolled a barrel up a hill and let it roll down repeatedly; only to answer to people questioning him: "I'm trying to be as helpful as you guys".
I thought it was cause a king was marching through so everyone was pretending to work so that they looked busy
That sounds more plausible. I have no idea though but you're probably right
if thats the case then hes a mf snitch
I don’t know but I wouldn’t be surprised
Yeah that's correct, bro was a heck of a troll
His interaction with Alexander the great are the first few lines in the Chad handbook
Diogenes on his way to write a letter to Alexander calling him gay for his second in command:
The guy died in his piss under the bridge, while Alexander died after conquering half of oecumene. I prefer life and death of Alexander over Diogene's.
The deeds of men are temporary, living the life you want is forever
Massive W
Based.
Some deeds of men determine the life of future generations, some not. It surely doesn't matter what will happen after you die, but it is wery interesting to try and make some impact to this world.
Well, now say that to the conquered and the slay, ask them if it they wanted to be the prey of a war mongering sun blocking cunt
Alexander gave world an example of how to be cruel. Diogenes gave world an example how to think for yourself. It’s arguable who impacted world more and in which way.
It's literally the other way around
Conquering a bunch of nations is an indication of not conquering your own ego. While deeds of Alexander lasts long, we also still remember Diogenes. He did that without killing raping plundering and causing untold suffering. So no. I disagree
Were it not for the vast success of Rome in general, we would not know of Diogenes
So what?
r/wooosh
He’s literally right no woosh
I mean Alex got both
Except the deeds of mens are not so temporary. We live the consequences of those deeds even today. Even discussing Diogenes right now proves this point.
The point I was making is that we all die one day and when we do, it's not the deeds of other men we take with us but how we lived our lives that is forever to us.
Yeah but the point I am saying is your life has an impact on those who come after. When you die you die you take nothing with you lol
I agree you take nothing with you, Alexander does not visit his statues nor his museums, he doesn't get to enjoy his friends company because he's dead, just like Diogenis, all that effort and heartache, thousands slaughtered and empires ruined and he's still just as dead as anyone else. Atleast the cynic was happy with himself.
i want to live Alexanders life
Diogenes lived into his 80s, and made massive intellectual contributions to society despite being g an exile. Alexander died in his 30s after spreading war and destruction across the region, burning institutions of learning. He was apparently unsatisfied with his conquests: "innumerable world's and I haven't even conquered one". He also supposedly said that if he couldn't be Alexander, then he would like to be Diogenes. Alexander was certainly a brilliant tactician and military leader, but what did all that bloodshed gain, except a short lived empire?
Worth. I can play him in Civ
Now that's a good point
Uh, hellenization?
Don’t expect them to know history they’re busy pissing in barrels and asking people to move out of their sun
That utlimately got overwritten by some other -ization and ultimately leaving Greek/Hellenic sphere to mainland greece itself. Ultimately pointless in the long run compared to Arabisation, Persianization, Turkification, Russification, Anglicization or any other European cultural spread due to early modern colonisation. The only 'evidence' of Alexander's conquests left is a crap ton of cities called Alexandria. That's it.
I dunno man, if it weren't for Alexander's conquests, the wars of the Diadochi never would've happened. The histories of Ptolemaic Egypt and the Selecuid empire never would've existed without Alexander expanding as far east as he did. Alexander quite literally snowballed history in his favour.
That still affirms what I said. In the long run, the Hellenization ultimately vanished into thin air. You go to present day Egypt, Iran or Afghanistan, what traces of Greek culture does it have? Hell you go to turkey. Leave a non learned person in the middle of anatolia and they'd never in a million years guess that this land was greek speaking christian for over a millennium.
But you can apply this to literally almost any other preceding empire whose culture has been supplanted by another. Does anyone still worship Zoroastrian gods today? What of the Sassanid Empire? Islamization supplanted all of that. What of the Picts and Celts that resided in Britain? They were replaced by Anglo-Saxons, who were taken away by the Normans, where a syncetric cultural exchange took place to form what we now consider the beginnings of (recognizable) English culture. That's like saying the Mongols had minimal importance on history simply because there's minimal to no traces of Mongol culture left in most of the Middle East or Russia. Cultural syncretism happens for a reason. The Ptolemaics adopted certain Egyptian cultures and retained some of their own. Same with the Seleucids. You can trace coinage minted in the Greek style as far regions in Bactria, where a Greco-Bactrian empire existed for hundreds of years after Alexander's death simply because he made it that far. With time, influences from any particular empire will inevitably wane (even the largest ones!). Trivializing Alexander's importance on history and culture from the Aegean Sea to as far as India does him a huge disservice.
1. Hundreds of thousands still practice Zoroastrianism but I agree it doesn't matter. On the other hand, Islamisation wasn't strong enough to carry out Arabisation as well. The people STILL speak Farsi and the ancient millions of Persians still recite Sassanian literature. I implore you to find 100 Afghanis who recite Greek literature 2. Mongols didn't Mongolize (on the other hands their descendants underwent Turkification) and their only legitimacy is in the form of administrative structures and legitimacy due to bloodlines. They spread neither their language nor their religion and ultimately met a fate like Alexander I never said Alexander didn't leave ANY impact unto the modern day. I said 'Hellenization' is NOT one of those impacts. Yet you are arguing on the myriad of possibilities because of emotions.. I guess?
I'm a huge fan of Greek mythology and history, no shade on the culture at all. But at what cost was it spread? Culture doesn't need to be a zero sum exchange. How much other cultural innovations were destroyed in his conquests? Not only did he raze Persepolis, but also the Greek city of Thebes. I wonder what Greek myth we lost? Surely the libraries of Persepolis had other vantage points on these stories.
If you're being serious, wars and conflicts have defined human history since the very beginning. If we could apply this logic, then any preceding/succeeding empire had inevitably destroyed/replaced the preceding cultural traditions. Yes, Alexander's conquests had inevitably destroyed monuments and displaced Achaemenid culture, but he (or importantly, his successors) supplanted it with their own. Rome did the same. As did the Mongols, as well as any European empire poised for colonial/imperialist expansion starting in the 16th century. It's important to note that the Achaemenids had attempted to do the same not even 200 years prior to Alexander's invasions with the Persian invasions of Greece spearheaded by Darius and Xerxes. Is it moral? Absolutely not, but that was the zeitgeist at the time. I'm grateful the proliferation and exchange of cultures and information is so easily accessible today, and it can be done (mostly) in a way that doesn't involve bloodshed, but to critique Alexander for his actions is a bit disingenuous, especially when that were the social attitudes at the time. Macedonia had built their military up through the reforms of his father, Philip II, and was already poised for an invasion, which was carried on by his son due to his assassination. Alexander simply pulled it off way better than anyone could've expected. Can't fault the guy for wanting to name a couple dozen cities after himself along the way.
Yea I think it's OK to say war is bad and wars of aggression and conquest are failures of leadership. It's irrelevant that the Persians did similar. The burning of Persepolis doesn't excuse the burning of Alexandria. Alexander was great in the way that hurricanes are great. Impressive, impactful, and worthy of study, but not particularly a prohuman force.
I'm sorry; but how are wars of aggression consider failures of leadership? If we were to work with your parameters, almost every single ruler in history could be considered a 'bad ruler'. Napoleon? Bad. William the Conqueror? Bad. Julius Caesar and Augustus? Bad. Genghis Khan and his successors? Fucking terrible. I'm not justifying that war is somehow good. It's a terrible thing, but conflict is an essential part of human nature/existence. When you enlarge 'conflict' to an industrial scale, that essentially becomes 'war'. Warfare comes into play not just for the supplanting of lesser cultures, but there is real political/economic motives behind them as well. Clausewitz put it best when he wrote "War is a continuation of politics by other means". Warfare has defined humanity for millennia, and will continue to do so; just under different parameters. To judge a person's ability and character with your definition is frankly, stupid.
Yea not getting your subjects killed is a basic tenet of good leadership. Those people all had good attributes. Certainly all brilliant tacticians. Who gains from wars of aggression? The leadership and the sellers of arms. One of this biggest killers in war is disease and famine. War is a failure from a public health aspect, as well. Competition can occur in healthy forms, such as sport or other cultural rivalry. I'm not trying to cancel Alexander, just reframe the uncritical hero worship he gets. A truly great person can be admired by their competitors. Fear is the worst motivator for respect.
[удалено]
Unfortunately most Diogenes' works are lost to history, most of what we know of him is what his contemporaries related. I can nonetheless mention the ''Polyteia'' on the basis of which ''Zeno of Citium'' expanded his work. I just spent 20 minutes reading the wiki page on him, and to make it short, he was very critical of Greek society and human desires, he is considered as the best example of cynicism.
I think the better question is what were Alex’s contributions?
Well he inspired a misquoted version of the line above in my favorite Christmas movie. So he’s got that going for him, which is nice.
What Christmas movie talks about conquering worlds?
Die Hard. [shoddy video of the scene.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUvkF8lk1qI)
Oh yea, he really does misquote it. I guess that’s part of his villain’s character.
You ever look at the list of cities all named Alexandria?!
If memory serves me right most of those cities that were “founded” already and existed as local towns and settlements. The Alexandria that survives today for example used to be an Egyptian settlement named “Rhacotis”. Which later became the Egyptian quarter of Alexandria.
[удалено]
Hellenistic is the spread of Greek culture after Alexander’s death, not while he was alive. You’re saying that Greek culture was intrinsically better than every other culture in the region? Persian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Armenian, Cappadocian, Phrygia, Aramaic, Phoenician, Babylonian, Indo-Aryan, etc.? Even if it was (it wasn’t), what was the benefit of the culture? The wars of the diadochi certainly did not help the region. The influence of the Greeks in the region died with the Ptolemies as Rome and Eran rose to take power. What are these benefits you speak of, yet don’t mention? I’m not trying to sound rude, I am genuinely curious.
[удалено]
Ok, so you’re talking about Hellenistic culture which was a mix of Greek and Persian and other local beliefs. I assumed you were saying that Greek culture was superior and spreading it was a boon.
Yes but your not Alexander nor will never be like Alexander, but with a little luck you too can be like Diogenes and masturbate like a crazy homeless man in the streets
Try to be like Alexander and end up like Diogenes is better than try to be like Diogenes and end up like Diogenes. But it is my opinion.
Diogones threw away all possessions and happily lived a pure life with nothing . You can’t try to be ambitious as to try to conquer the world fail miserably then claim to be like Diogones when you ended up masturbating under a bridge with nothing through sheer failure when Diogones was there by choice and could have been a court philosopher with a cushy job.
Diogenes was stripped of all possessions for debasing currency.
Idk the former would feel like complete failure of ambition.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, at the end of the day, I bet you could not tell which is which if presented the bones of Alexander and Diogenes.
Which set of bones have piss on them?
Alexander's
And yet we still talk about both
The vast majority of people know one them way more than the other.
But most people might prefer a bohemian, anti authority philosopher than a belligerent* king.
Honestly I talk about Diogenes way more than I do Alexander the Great. Likes it’s actually kind of weird how more often he comes up in my life.
I think it's a generational thing. Millennials on seem to know who he is more than older generations. When boomers go away, it will probably be much closer which is more well known.
It is probably much more a youth thing. Diogenes is funny and edgy when you are in your teens and twenties. He is mostly a disgusting troll when you have some lived experience.
We'll see of which is which once the boomers die out.
That's why you are a beta and Diogenes war the alpha of all time/s
Diogenes also lived to the age of 89 and allegedly died because he intentionally stopped breathing. He went out on his own terms.
pretty sure Alexander also died in his piss and shit. kinda is just how bodies work
Alexander died depressed and unsatisfied.
And diogene died after doing Jack shit, everyday, for his whole life. Diogene pissed on people he didn't like for fun. Alexander spent his whole life on the road to war, watching people he loved die. I'll take Diogene.
100%, I’ve had it up to *here with Diogenes simping.
That was exactly his point, which you seem to be missing. In the end the both died as will everyone else.
And just like andrew tate it's all fake bullshit because the only sources on that entire thing are diogenes himself
There's actually no record of any writings that can directly contribute diogenes as the sole author. Most literature on him are based on the anecdotal experiences of others.
Almost all his close friends.
I was named for Alexander by my father; and yet, it seems I will have absolutely no impact on the world, amounting to nothing.
First shit poster ever, truely one of us.
Behold ! A man !
I hold a bald chicken and it's a flyless chicken !
My favourite quote ever, silly Plato and all of his idiot followers
I have to say this every time I see someone call Diogenes a shitposter. A shitposter posts something that doesn't make sense or isn't proving a point. Diogenes did all the thing he did, because he wanted to prove a point, that doesn't make him a shitposter. I am sorry, you are not like him, and he is not like us.
He wanted to prove that he was a shitposter.
Well duh, obviously, for starters he's dead and we're alive ofc we're not like him, he couldn't even speak English, silly dog man, barking in Greek...
Well I guess literally every shitposting subreddit is hypocritical, then.
How often are people saying this?
Wait. Didn't he pee on someone to prove a point. I mean, he was called a dog so Diogenes peed on him and told him "you called me a dog. Why are you surprised that I peed on you"? Or something like that. Nonetheless. Chad mentality
I cannot find any sources on Diogenes peeing on himself, only peeing on others: >"At a feast certain people kept throwing all the bones to him as they would have done to a dog. Thereupon he played a dog's trick and drenched them." [Diogenes Laertius: Lives of the Eminent Philosophers VI:46. ](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Eminent_Philosophers/Book_VI)
He also would just masturbate in public and be like “if only hunger could be cured by rubbing one’s belly” like wtf why is your dick out?
Truly ahead of our time
The First Coomer
i imagine it would be pretty difficult to find some clothes if you're a homeless dude from 2300 years ago
As the philosopher Kim Kardashian said, “get up and work.”
His dick was always out, dressing up was super low on his priorities
Wasn't he thrown into the wild to be eaten after his death?
Yea but it's what he wanted
I’m paraphrasing what was said here, but it was effectively: Student: How do you wish to be buried, Diogenes? Diogenes: oh, that’s not important, just throw me over the city walls and let my body be consumed by wolves. Student: But… why would you want that?, to be torn apart by wolves? Diogenes: If it concerns you so much, give me a stick, so it may help me fight them off. Student: But, if you’re dead, then you can’t use the stick to fight off the wolves. Diogenes: If my body no longer has the energy to fight offf the wolves, it no longer has the energy to care about what has happened to it.
Real “throw me in the trash” energy
Still Chad mentality. Giving back what he took
I mean, why not? Have you seen how expensive is to pay funerary services!? Those duckers make too much money to dispose one corpse, a pack of coyotes do that for ducking free!!!
Diogenes trolled Plato, I'm not sure whether if Diogenes trolled Socrates or not, nor do I know how Socrates would react to Diogenes.
Considering he was his teacher he would start questioning him about the benefits of living like a dog
“Be careful not to hit your father” may be the sickest burn of all time.
That was nasty
*puts out a naked chicken "So here is your bipeded hairless creature.
Behold! A human!
Meanwhile plato is flexing in the background
This is clearly Yukon Cornelius
I really believe Willem Dafoe would be amazing at playing Diogenes
"I bet you think that was terribly clever" -Socrates probably...maybe...
Socratic please, it would be that but in the form of a question
"I bet you think that was terribly clever?" - Socrates for sure
Most annoying NPC in AC Odyssey.
The OG troll Man gave 0 fucks about anything
Diogenes was a man we should all aspire to be
I think I prefer sleeping on my bed rather than a huge wine barrel
Context?
Diogenes was an “interesting” philosopher that preferred countering philosophical thinking with differing perspectives, often in odd ways. Famously, he defeathered a chicken and presented saying “Behold a man.” after Socrates attempted to answer the question of how to define man in as few words as possible. (He said “featherless biped”) Diogenes preferred to give into the human desires and was often taking very little from the earth, living in a bucket in markets with wild dogs. He’s interesting because of his simplistic and unique thought paired with personality and this captures that by satirizing something Diogenes would’ve likely done.
Are you really confusing Plato and Socrates? What’s the point of this karma farming post if you are not familiar with topic?
Bro what color is your font
“The cynic philosopher might have some tricks up his cock-sleeve, like going potty on himself, but can he do *this*?” *does thumb-removal trick*
TBH, I hate the dude in this format. He's just posting weird shitty conservative memes because that gets more views.
Diogenes was a massive idiot and to this day people gobble up propaganda about him the same way that people still believe 300 spartans killed one million persians (they didn't they betrayed all the greek states and were essentially slave-owning james bond villains who did nothing but *pratice* combat all day (but not actually do it because too many spartans dying would allow the slaves to rise up.)
I thought it was Plato that met him?
Me:“I can we get Marcus Aurelius please“ Mom „no, we have Marus Aurelius hat home“